Slashdot Mirror

This seems more like something stupid Kevin Warwick would do.

Warwick was never a cyborg.

Does controlling a mechanical hand count? Or communicating electronically (however primitive)? And that's what he was up to in 2002.

I'm sure the significance of this can not be missed by anyone, however just like boys will be boys...Slashdoters will be Slashdoters and make comedy about the most serious topics. Re: "I wonder if, further down the line..." Check out Kevin Warwick's (Reading University, UK) work @ http://www.kevinwarwick.com/ He and his wife apparently was able to transfer sensory information from one person to the other in his Cyborg 2.0 experiment.

I wonder how much Professor Cyborg (Kevin Warwick) and his Project Cyborg projects helped with this particular project.

  These robotic limbs give new hope to people with diabetes who had to have their limbs removed. Maybe someday, We will be able to tap into the optic nerve and give people sight through small robotic eyeball or Star Trek like visor.

Suddenly is seem like Captain Cyborg might have a point.

Don't let him meet Captain Cyborg
It starts with a little electrode in the brain to "better understand human consciousness" but pretty soon it is an Orwellian nightmare
You can find more from Kevin's Yamaha YM3812 ^W^W mouth here

I can see the benefit of these creations and I applaud the efforts of the engineers and scientists involved, but I can't help thinking that enhancements to the human model would be a better route to go for artificial intelligence. Enhancements to human intelligence would give us all a much greater degree of control over our environments than the use of autonomous discrete AI robots.

Kevin Warwick seems to have the right idea AFAIC.

This should thrill Mister http://www.kevinwarwick.com/

And oh, about BLOODY time we have a Roland Piquepaille section

oh, come on alt least its not Kevin "Bloody "Warwick so he's not all bad.

I guess Kevin Warwick will enjoy the prospect of the Personal Area Network as described above, though. Now if only we could find a way to embed these devices directly into the skin and/or find a way to connect the input jacks directly into our brains...

(For those who don't know, Kevin Warwick is Professor of Cybernetics at Reading University, and performed an experiment on himself by implanting a tracking device into his arm, which allowed computers to determine which room he was in, and make judgements based on his position).

this forming the basis for Project Cyborg 3.0 when Kevin Warwick gets to it.

Kevin Warwick has been doing this for ages.

In 2000, he announced his plan to wire electrodes into his median nerve. This would have two purposes, he could "record" the nerve signal when he moved his hand, as well as attempt to "play back" the impulse and make his hand move on its own.

He hasn't done it yet, his FAQ lists it as scheduled for September.

The BBC/Today programme was also thought it necessary to publish this week's big scary rock stories (/. passim) and give yet more air-time to Captain Cyborg this morning.

Can we say "quiet-news-day", kids?

-Sam Dunham

Progress in computer hardware has followed an amazingly steady curve in the last few decades [17]. Based largely on this trend, I believe that the creation of greater than human intelligence will occur during the next thirty years.

Progress in computer hardware has followed this curve and continues to do so. Progress in computer intelligence however, hasn't. Computers are still stupid. They can now be stupid more quickly. This isn't going to produce super-human intelligence any time soon.

Dr Vinge reminds me somewhat of that most mocked of AI doomsayers, Kevin Warwick.

I like to think that in 100 years time, we will have computers that would scoff at this definition of intelligence.

Actually, neither of these definitions tries to define intelligence itself, which I think is one of the reason why they're my favourite definitions of AI. They certainly don't attempt to enforce any human-based implementation for AIs - the first definition defines AI not through the way in which accomplishes tasks, but the tasks which it accomplishes.

One of the great weaknesses in a lot of arguments about AI (in particular those put forward by such AI 'specialists' as Kevin Warwick) is a failure to define intelligence up front, or even give a few broad descriptions of what might be seen as intelligent. It's probably one of the more difficult definitions to come up with, and defining a test for it is next to impossible. Behaviour that appears intelligent can be extremely stupid. Likewise, behaviour that appears to require low intelligence may involve a lot of it. The Turing test is often put forward as a test of intelligence, but it's highly flawed: having intelligence does not mean needing to be capable of communicating with a human being. If an American was acting as the observer in a Turing test, then a Russian would fail the test - surely if such a simple thing as a language barrier between different races of the same species can break the test, communication between two entirely different forms of intelligence would render it useless.